The Hawaiian gazette., 1887-06-14

~ -ssLNASDSk AE>EN--r
o. C1as l PRESTON y
At tle la>. Jauuary Term. the pris
onerS Were prosecuted on an ludlet
ment. tine material parts of which are
a follows:
TLat Henry AcCbesney and
Thomas 0icILEin OK Honolulu, in the
Island OF Oahu. on the twenty y-Second
day OF Ocsooe~. 1856, telonioUS.y, dl0
steal. take. aud carry away tro-n the
Office or counting room Of NJ. ". Nc
Chesney and another situate, n Queen
street. In said Honolulu. certain
MONEYS 10 Wit, nine hundred and
thirty dollars Of the value Of nine
hundred and thirty dollars, lawful
ful money. current II TINS Kingdom,
OF the goods. chattels, and moneys OF
NJ. ". McChespey and another.
whereby the said defendants are
guilty Of the crime Of larceny II the
second degree.
And the Attoruey-General afOre-
said. upon ms official oath aforesaid,
doth further present that the said
Henry AIeCheSney and Thomas Nc
Gifin, al Honolulu aforesaid. N the
twenty second day Of October, 4 D
1885. IeIonioUsly and fraudulently
did take. accept, and receive certain
MONEYS II W.T.. uiIe hundred and
thirty dollars ot the value Of nlne
hundred and ShlrJy dollars, lawful
money. current II TINS Kingdom. o.
the goods. chattels. and moneys Cr W
III. AIcCLesrey ana another. then late
II before te-urloUsly stolen. taken.
and carried away. they. theCaid h
IcChesuey and L. 1IeC9Imu, then well
knowing the >al8 last mentioned
moneys 70 nave been felonlously
stolen. taken. and carried sway. &c-
To this Indictment the defendant
McChesney pleaded guilty 10 the frst
Court and not guilty TO the second
The Artorney- General then entered
q nolle pros to the second Court with
respect 10 AIcCheSney.
The defendant AcGifin, by MS
counsel. moved 10 quash the indeJ-
ment on the grounds:
1st- That the law required TWO
Counts. and IN SAID Indictment, the
two so-called Counts were not proper
II pleaded. not being separate and
distinguished from each other.
~2d. Tnac the second so-caLed
Count. Is mere relJeEaClOn Of the
charge Of larceny, and does not
legally and properly state the crime
of receiving stolen goods. the same
not being properly pleaded.
The motion. after argument. was
overruled. and the defendant duly
excepted, and pleaded not guilty 70
the whole indictment
We are Of opinion that the said
motion to qUas1 was properly over
ruled.
We understand the f-st objection
10 mean thar the words ~ Second
Count are D05 placed opposite the
commencement Of the Count. This
Is not necessary ana cerCaInly y affords
no ground for lusshlng the whole
indictment.
Tie second objection states that the
second Count i merely q reIteratIOn
OF the charge Of larceny. and does
not properly state the crime Of reee-y
ing stolen goods
We tal 10 see any charge Of larceny
against the defendants II the second
Count. but Il appear TO be us. that the
Court ! II the usual form charging
. receipt OF stolen goods and l. su1
cient
II was argued before =, that there
Is No averme1t OF time II respect 70
the larceny. that there i no proper
description q the stolen property
and t1at IL does not appear that the
things charged to have been received.
were the same gUoas- ehatJeLs and
MONEYS. or any particular or sgectfic
part OF the same referred 70 n the
Court for larceny
Without deciding whether If these
points OF either OF them had been
taken II time. We should have held
the Indictment bad: Il i sufficient TO
say. they were not taken 81 the trial
before plea. and cannot. therefore.
now be made available
At the Grial. the Crown called the
defendant AIcCheSney as 3 witness. 70
the Introduction OF whose evidence
the defendant objected upon the
grounds that his evidence was mad
Missile for any purpose for the rea-
sons.
1st- That lie Is admitted to be the
principal offender and not entitled
under uny circumstances 70 testify
against 4IcGIfin who l. admitted 10
be sn accompIiee-
ID An acconpIice OF CO defendant
cannot testify upon the request Of the
prosecution. unless he i A- charged
from the record which / not done IN
this case a. he was, upon his plea OF
guilty. remanded for sentence
Sd HIS admissions OF confessions
cannot be used against his c0-iefen
dsnt as evidence for any purpose. as
BIe5ifin l. not bound by them unless
he agreed to and consented to them
These objections were overruled.
and the defendant duly excepted